Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
04-04-2010, 12:50
|
#46
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 312
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
I find it particularly irksome that this bill is likely to go through on a "nod" using the the Wash up procedure simply because of timing (election may be called) which IMO is rather more than fortuitous timing. So much for the democratic process.
I supposedly have nothing whatsoever to fear from the potential legislation because I do nothing that breaches any of the proposed laws within the act. However having seen a PC magazine article on secure wireless network hacking I looked further with Google and found over 500K hits on how to hack WEP and WPA secure wireless networks.
Given that many\most users do not have a clue how to secure their networks and even those that do are open to easy hacking it does not bode well for the innocents who by accident or intent are going to find themselves on the receiving end of potentially punitive measures for something they neither had knowledge of or control over.
Holding somebody accountable for the actions of another party who broke in to commit a criminal act when industry standard anti-intrusion methods were in place runs contrary to UK common justice.
My Wireless is totally disabled and will stay that way because over time hackers and crackers will break anything produced.
|
|
|
04-04-2010, 13:01
|
#47
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Mr angry thats if the isp reasonably suspects.
You still have it wrong.
The new legislation as I understand it will allow isp's been 'told' to disconnect users if a 3rd party suspects. If I am wrong on that bit feel free to tell me.
|
|
|
04-04-2010, 13:41
|
#48
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Mr angry thats if the isp reasonably suspects.
You still have it wrong.
The new legislation as I understand it will allow isp's been 'told' to disconnect users if a 3rd party suspects. If I am wrong on that bit feel free to tell me.
|
You are wrong.
With the new legislation, unlike the existing T&Cs, ISPs will not be able to disconnect users simply because they "suspect" (whether reasonably or not) that an infringement "may" have taken place. The DEB will require a process of proof and processing, proper data collection and identification to be put in place - currently this is not a legal requirement and "suspicion" is, in some cases, considered sufficient reason by ISPs.
I have pointed out, repeatedly, the involvement of a third party or instruction by or on behalf of a third party in order for an ISP to disconnect a user / subscriber is not currently, nor has it ever been, a necessary part of the process in order for someone to have their service / connection suspended or terminated on the basis of copyright infringement where an ISP "suspects" such infringements to have occured.
This is stated very clearly in laypersons plain english in the portions of the T&C's which I copied for you above if you'd care to read them.
In effect, the DEB will provide better protection for customers, not less, than the current T&Cs of many, if not all, ISPs.
Under the DEB the IP addresses of infringers will be identified and forwarded to the relevant ISPs, letter(s) will issue, consequent offences will be logged, further correspondence will issue and only the most persistant offenders will be disconnected.
The current system (that of disconnection at the whim of an ISP based purely on "suspicion" as is the case with TalkTalk) - if it were enforced - is a much less formal, fair and balanced system and that is what the ISPs (particularly TalkTalk) have issue with being forced to implement.
If you can be bothered researching these things you'll find that the DEB is not quite as bad as it has been painted to be. Even its initial opponents in the House of Lords have had to concede as much on various elements of same.
Fear mongering on the grounds of rights to privacy, ignorance and a wanton disregard for the intellectual rights, copyrights and the right to be paid for their creative works (together with the rights of those in the ancilliary industries to earn a living) will shortly no longer be tolerated.
You pretending to not understand the situation will not change it.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 05:27
|
#49
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Under the DEB will these ip address be forwarded with a court order?
I am not concerned about isp's t&c's. They not going to cut off their own customers without a 3rd party been involved. Its what happens in the 3rd party side of things I am interested in. As it stands now people get warning letters (with insufficient evidence) and sometimes get fines but they do not get cutoff, unless they doing some kind of crime such as port scanning, exploiting sites etc.
So.
1 - How will these ip's get identified?
2 - Will the 3rd parties be able to send these ip's to isp's for action to be taken directly without legal process?
3 - action such as throttling the customer or blocking protocols?
4 - action such as cutting the customer off?
5 - if fines stay are they still going to be disproportionate to losses, eg. will someone get fined £50k for downloading a few music tracks?
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 08:50
|
#50
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Chrysalis,
With all due respect, the documentation is there for you to peruse at your leisure and you will find the answer to your "questions" - not that the answers to many are not already provided within the thread if you'd bother to read the posts in their entirety.
Your "I am not concerned about isp's t&c's" shows that you have little or no understanding whatsoever of the situation and that you are not reading, or you are failing to understand, replies offered to you.
I am not prepared to put things in black and white for you only for you to pretend you can only see grey.
Good luck to you in your quest.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 10:18
|
#51
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
its not pretending, I admit I am been lazy that I have not read it yet.
I am also asking rather than saying. If my fears are wrong then fair enough.
For example in america its common for people to serve false DMCA notices to get sites they dont like shutdown.
---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------
so
Quote:
The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so
|
Quote:
A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—
(a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright;
(b) includes a description of the apparent infringement;
(c) includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;
(d) is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and
(e) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.
|
So this obligates isps to pass on notices of infringement, I notice it doesnt say 'suspected' notices of infringement and only an ip address and time is required. Lack of evidence.
Further down (I wont paste is a lot of work formatting it) there is obligations for isp's to impose restrictions such as port blocking, throttling and even disconnection.
It is hard to understand but I dont see anything that says I am wrong.
(a) It appears to say content owners can give copyright infringement reports to isp's directly without legal process.
(b) It appears to say isp's must provide a list of other copyright infringement reports to a content owner if they ask for it, again without legal process. However the end user remains anonymous.
(c) The secretary of state can order isp's to impose technical limits to help copyright holders. Such as throttling, blocking ports and suspending the user. So basically censor the internet.
Seems to me my concerns are correct and the government is holding the copyright holder's hands.
(c) is particurly damaging as it means quality isps such as ukonline and BE will need to get traffic shaping equipment.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 11:33
|
#52
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
its not pretending, I admit I am been lazy that I have not read it yet.
I am also asking rather than saying. If my fears are wrong then fair enough.
For example in america its common for people to serve false DMCA notices to get sites they dont like shutdown.
|
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
So this obligates isps to pass on notices of infringement, I notice it doesnt say 'suspected' notices of infringement and only an ip address and time is required. Lack of evidence.
|
Note the terminology used (in bold below). It obligates the ISPs to forward to the account holder notices of "apparent" infringement, not "alleged" infringement.
A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—
(a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright;
(b) includes a description of the apparent infringement;
(c) includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;
(d) is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and
(e) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
It is hard to understand but I dont see anything that says I am wrong.
|
I will try to outline this for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
(a) It appears to say content owners can give copyright infringement reports to isp's directly without legal process.
|
That is correct - and it has always been the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
(b) It appears to say isp's must provide a list of other copyright infringement reports to a content owner if they ask for it, again without legal process. However the end user remains anonymous.
|
Yes, you are correct, on both counts. At this stage there is no user identification ergo there is, again, no requirement for "legal process".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
(c) The secretary of state can order isp's to impose technical limits to help copyright holders. Such as throttling, blocking ports and suspending the user. So basically censor the internet.
|
Yes, and in doing so is acting to protect the rights of thousands of UK citizens whose income and job security is directly derived from or dependant on revenues raised through the creative or ancilliary industries which would otherwise be further jeapordised by continued inaction or a disregard for the illegal activities of those who seek to procure media without paying for it as is normally required.
I should point out that it is not to "help" copyright holders but to protect their rights under law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Seems to me my concerns are correct and the government is holding the copyright holder's hands.
|
You may consider it as "Government holding the copyright holders hands" others will see it as an attempt to reduce the wanton infringement of copyright and to secure jobs and businesses which are under threat as a result of such activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
(c) is particurly damaging as it means quality isps such as ukonline and BE will need to get traffic shaping equipment.
|
It appears that both service providers mentioned have cut off provisions akin to earlier posted T&Cs and it is clear that at least one has shaping & traffic management already in place.
It's "funny" that ISPs (such as TalkTalk by way of an example) might moot a legal requirement for additional investment in technology to address these issues as a potential death knell for their own business model - yet at the same time they extol the virtues of technological advances which they provide (at a profit) to "customers" to decimate other business models.
On that point it is interesting that you frequently raise the matter of certain rights being protected by "legal process" in relation to matters which you appear to have issues or concerns with and which you consider to be inappropriate in relation to the DEB legislation. I shouldn't really have to point this out to anyone but the illegal downloading / sharing of copyrighted material is a matter of concern to rights holders, why are those who download illegally not as vocal in their defence of those persons right to "legal process"?
That said, if in a few weeks time the DEB is passed into law it will, ironically, form the backbone of that very same legal process.
Food for thought.
EDIT:
Just for info, here are excerpts from that "quality" ISP BE's current "legal stuff" wef 01/01/2010.
So what can Be’s services not be used for?
- Unlawful, fraudulent, criminal or otherwise illegal activities
- Sending, receiving, publishing, posting, distributing, disseminating, encouraging the receipt of, uploading, downloading, recording, reviewing, streaming or using any material which is offensive, abusive, defamatory, indecent, obscene, unlawful, harassing or menacing or a breach of the copyright, trademark, intellectual property, confidence, privacy or any other rights of any person
and
What about usage by kids and others without you knowing?
No excuse. You are responsible for all uses made of Be’s Internet services through your account (whether authorised or unauthorised) and for any breach of this Policy whether an unacceptable use occurs or is attempted, whether you knew or should have known about it, whether or not you carried out or attempted the unacceptable use alone, contributed to or acted with others or allowed any unacceptable use to occur by omission. You agree that Be are not responsible for any of your activities in using the network. Although the Internet is designed to appeal to a broad audience, it’s your responsibility to determine whether any of the content accessed via Be’s Internet service is appropriate for children or others in your household or office to view or use.
That is some serious, pre-emptive, "ass covering" if ever I saw it.
Do you think maybe they know something?
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 13:13
|
#53
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
As I said before if someone is infringing copyright, I have no problem with them been dealt with fairly which yes would include them having their isp agreement terminated as its a breach of aup.
My problem is the method's used to catch these people.
I think we can agree to disagree on the method's used. Although I read somewhere the lib dem's have managed to get some kind of ammendment where there needs to be another debate? before users can be suspended by the secretary of state.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 14:12
|
#54
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
As I said before if someone is infringing copyright, I have no problem with them been dealt with fairly which yes would include them having their isp agreement terminated as its a breach of aup.
My problem is the method's used to catch these people.
I think we can agree to disagree on the method's used. Although I read somewhere the lib dem's have managed to get some kind of ammendment where there needs to be another debate? before users can be suspended by the secretary of state.
|
Nobody is "disagreeing" with you about the methods used - you are questioning the suitability of the process.
Quite why anyone would have an issue with an IP address being identified by a rights holder, the rights holder communicating that information to the service provider, the service provider confirming the information and, having done so, writing to the account holder to advise them of the fact (several times if necessary) and affording them the chance to either deny culpability or address the issue to prevent future infringements is beyond me.
Would you rather the ISPs used their own monitoring systems and cut users off (with, as I have evidenced from several ISP's T&Cs, no warning or redress) citing a breach of the AUP?
The fact / point is that under the DEB they would be having their access terminated both because they had violated the terms of their providers AUP and had been persistent in their infringement of copyrights. As such it offers better protection for both the customers and the rights holders.
As for the Lib Dems - I think you are referring to Amendment 120a (which they themselves originally introduced and then sought to have changed) but this has subsequently been rejected out of hand.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 16:34
|
#55
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Because the current methods used involve copyright holders watching torrent trackers for uk ip address's and sending these off to isp's.
These ip's can be spoofed amongst other things.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 16:59
|
#56
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Because the current methods used involve copyright holders watching torrent trackers for uk ip address's and sending these off to isp's.
These ip's can be spoofed amongst other things.
|
As I evidenced above the ISPs will then check the validity of the report against their records of activity on the part of the IP address and, in the event that the information is corroborated, there will be ample opportunity for the IP address "owner" at the time of the alleged infringement to refute same and / or to take appropriate measures (security or otherwise) to prevent it happening again.
It's better that they have these avenues of redress available to them than just a straightforward termination decision being made by their ISP, don't you agree?
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 17:27
|
#57
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
I dont know if I am allowed to link to another site, but I just read an interesting article on tbb from an isp.
They raised some very good points why this bill needs to be not ruled in, and it appears now the lib dems are going to try and block it completely.
The bill makes no mention that the isps can check against the evidence, it seems to say the information is passed to the isp, the isp then passes this onto the customer and the government can choose to enforce technical measures based on this evidence. The key point is the onus is onto the end user to prove themself innocent rather than the copyright holder going to court to prove them guilty. This bill is very very wrong as it will just lead to internet censorship all for a small group of copyright holders.
|
|
|
05-04-2010, 18:08
|
#58
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I dont know if I am allowed to link to another site, but I just read an interesting article on tbb from an isp.
They raised some very good points why this bill needs to be not ruled in, and it appears now the lib dems are going to try and block it completely.
The bill makes no mention that the isps can check against the evidence, it seems to say the information is passed to the isp, the isp then passes this onto the customer and the government can choose to enforce technical measures based on this evidence. The key point is the onus is onto the end user to prove themself innocent rather than the copyright holder going to court to prove them guilty. This bill is very very wrong as it will just lead to internet censorship all for a small group of copyright holders.
|
That is patently untrue and more scare mongering on the part of ISPs and the piracy lobby.
Tell me Chrysalis, why are you not up in arms, or prepared to comment, on the already existing ability, as repeatedly evidenced herein, of ISPs to terminate accounts even without the involvement of third parties?
Rather than reverting to form and ignoring information which is contrary to your "ideal world" view you could read the "obligations" part of the bill I linked to earlier
Here are the relevant points under "Obligations".
(4) An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement
report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations
code requires the provider to do so.
(5) A notification under subsection (4) must be sent to the subscriber
within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the provider
receives the report.
(6) A notification* under subsection (4) must include —
(a) a statement that the notification is sent under this section in
response to a copyright infringement report;
(b) the name of the copyright owner who made the report;
(c) a description of the apparent infringement;
(d) evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the
subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was
gathered;
Is that clear enough for you?
Evidence is required, several letters will issue, where appropriate / required and this is not a straight to court thereafter issue.
You are making yourself look foolish with your continued refusal to accept the reality of the situation and your credibility, and indeed that of your "argument" is not helped by the fact that you assert that this whole "plot", as you see it, is "all for a small group of copyright holders".
The fact of the matter is (as stated several times in this thread alone) these measures are to protect the rights, income, jobs and futures of hundreds of thousands of people and those who work in or are dependant upon the creative sectors or ancilliary activities.
Please stop acting so naive.
* A "Notification" as distinct from a "Copyright infringement report".
|
|
|
06-04-2010, 11:34
|
#59
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,047
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
as I said before we need to agree to disagree.
3rd and final time a letter with an ip address gathered from a torrent tracker and time is 'not' evidence a court would accept, hence them lobbying the government to bypass legal process. You disagree with me which is fine, but there is no point in trying to make me change the way I see this.
End of the day an isp can terminate who they want for any reason after all it is their service, why would I have a problem with this?
You seriously cannot see a difference between an isp choosing to terminate a customer and a 3rd party been able to force them to do so? Sorry but from where I sit all you thinking about is the well been of the media industry.
Not only this but you chose to put in bold some information I already know and is nothing to do with what I said. The isp is obligated to pass on the report, that is not saying the isp can check the evidence and dispute it on behalf of the customer, it says exactly the opposite that the isp without question has to pass on the report even if false. Also isp's are agreeing with me and they do this for a living.
|
|
|
06-04-2010, 15:09
|
#60
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,785
|
re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
as I said before we need to agree to disagree.
3rd and final time a letter with an ip address gathered from a torrent tracker and time is 'not' evidence a court would accept, hence them lobbying the government to bypass legal process. You disagree with me which is fine, but there is no point in trying to make me change the way I see this.
|
I am not trying to make you change how you see things. I am stating a fact. There is currently no requirement whatsoever on the part of ISPs to entertain a legal process before cutting of someone whom they suspect or catch infringing on someone elses copyright.
If you have information (other than your opinion or your having read / heard it somewhere) to the contrary then publish it here. Otherwise admit that you are wrong and are flogging a dead horse.
Here is the news. If the DEB is made law then whatever it deems sufficient from an evidentiary perspective will be the benchmark, not what you, I or anyone else thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
End of the day an isp can terminate who they want for any reason after all it is their service, why would I have a problem with this?
|
I don't know, why would you have a problem with it? Could it be that (as per your post over on TBB) you subscirbe to the school of thought that copyright infringement is "wrong" but not theft?
You really are a contradiction in terms Chrysalis. Here you are acknowledging the right of ISPs to cut people off based on "suspicion" and you are crying about them now possibly having to provide proof before doing so. Can you see how self contradictory and idiotic your stance appears?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
You seriously cannot see a difference between an isp choosing to terminate a customer and a 3rd party been able to force them to do so?
|
See above (and multiple previous references to same). It's you who is splitting hairs. I am stating the fact that ISPs have always had the ability (technologically) / right (contractually) and legal obligation to do so. It is you and your ilk who are getting hot under the collar because ISPs will now be forced to do so by the participation of the very people who suffer most as a result of piracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Sorry but from where I sit all you thinking about is the well been of the media industry.
|
It's very juvenile to try and pigeonhole this as a purely music / movie / media issue. There are countless other industries such as software etc that piracy affects.
If I am considered by you, or anyone, to be supportive of legal steps being taken to prevent people losing their livelyhoods and jobs I don't think that's anything I ought to be ashamed of. On the other hand - those who have an issue with my doing so would in my opinion have good cause to question their own ethics / moral scruples (or lack thereof).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Not only this but you chose to put in bold some information I already know and is nothing to do with what I said. The isp is obligated to pass on the report, that is not saying the isp can check the evidence and dispute it on behalf of the customer,
|
Forgive me, I put things in bold because It is obvious that you are failing to comprehend basic english - a fact borne out by your continued and repeated refusal to deal with the facts as presented to you. If you care to go back and read either the Act or my previous post on the matter you will see that the ISP is obliged to issue a "notification". The notification is an entirely different thing to the the "copyright infringement report" which is provided to the ISP by the rights holder.
The ISPs (who you seem to think are your friend, protecting you and providing all and sundry with entertainment and software on tap illegally at the click of a button) are not interested in defending you, they are interested in preserving their market share and the legal element of their customer base - at the minimum cost to themselves. The unfortunate thing for freetards is that the Government are now, very belatedly, bringing them (the ISPs) to book. Effectively everyone knows that you can't stop piracy but if you start hurting the bottom line of the conduit providers, blocking the facilitators and disconnecting the more persistant offenders you will make an impact.
Part of the costs issue being consulted on (for I know you haven't even bothered reading the links provided) is directly relevant to the additional overheads which will be incurred by ISPs to ensure that they have effective usage monitoring systems in place to monitor and ensure the accuracy of alleged infringements. You yourself have even alluded to this in your posts on another forum "...the costs will be tremendous".
Do you really think, for a minute, that back here in the real world ISPs are going to expose themselves to the threat of breach of contract proceedings based on an "apparent infringement"? If this Act becomes law they will need to have considerable proof prior to any move to disconnect a subsciber for persistant infringement. That they may not feel inclined to share that proof, or how they established same, with the subscriber up to the point of appeal necessitating them having to do so, is entirely up to them and based, most probably, on reasons of commercial confidentiality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
it says exactly the opposite that the isp without question has to pass on the report even if false.
|
That is total rubbish. Under schedule 4. Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements subsection (4) states "An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations code requires the provider to do so. I can't find any reference to "even if false" in the initial obligations code - can you point it out for me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Also isp's are agreeing with me and they do this for a living.
|
Well, well, well, there's a surprise - you overlooked / ignored my earlier posts about why the ISPs "are agreeing" with you, didn't you?
It is not in their interests financially to be compelled by law to cut off persistant or repeat offenders - everyone, even you, knows that.
Chrysalis, with all due respect, since you entered this discussion you have posited several statements which I have challenged you on and asked for clarification or for you to substantiate. You have singularly failed to respond to any of them. Your continued evasiveness is noteworthy but let me tell you something which I think you need to know.
Closing your eyes tight, sticking your fingers in your ears stamping your feet and repeatedly singing out aloud "La, la, la la, I'm not listening" will not change reality.
You best get used to that fact.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42.
|